Asymptotics of the sum $sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^n}{n^n}$
How does the sum
$$f(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^n}{n^n}$$
behave asymptotically as $xtoinfty$? It appears that $f(x)$ asymptotically dominates any polynomial and is dominated by any exponential, so we might consider $log f(x)$ rather than $f(x)$.
I apologize for having no work to show on this problem; I have no idea how to begin tackling a problem regarding the asymptotics of a function given its power series (of which there is no hope of evaluating in closed form). Hopefully an answer will provide me with some tools for doing so.
sequences-and-series summation asymptotics taylor-expansion
|
show 1 more comment
How does the sum
$$f(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^n}{n^n}$$
behave asymptotically as $xtoinfty$? It appears that $f(x)$ asymptotically dominates any polynomial and is dominated by any exponential, so we might consider $log f(x)$ rather than $f(x)$.
I apologize for having no work to show on this problem; I have no idea how to begin tackling a problem regarding the asymptotics of a function given its power series (of which there is no hope of evaluating in closed form). Hopefully an answer will provide me with some tools for doing so.
sequences-and-series summation asymptotics taylor-expansion
4
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
How does the sum
$$f(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^n}{n^n}$$
behave asymptotically as $xtoinfty$? It appears that $f(x)$ asymptotically dominates any polynomial and is dominated by any exponential, so we might consider $log f(x)$ rather than $f(x)$.
I apologize for having no work to show on this problem; I have no idea how to begin tackling a problem regarding the asymptotics of a function given its power series (of which there is no hope of evaluating in closed form). Hopefully an answer will provide me with some tools for doing so.
sequences-and-series summation asymptotics taylor-expansion
How does the sum
$$f(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^n}{n^n}$$
behave asymptotically as $xtoinfty$? It appears that $f(x)$ asymptotically dominates any polynomial and is dominated by any exponential, so we might consider $log f(x)$ rather than $f(x)$.
I apologize for having no work to show on this problem; I have no idea how to begin tackling a problem regarding the asymptotics of a function given its power series (of which there is no hope of evaluating in closed form). Hopefully an answer will provide me with some tools for doing so.
sequences-and-series summation asymptotics taylor-expansion
sequences-and-series summation asymptotics taylor-expansion
asked 2 days ago
Frpzzd
21.8k839107
21.8k839107
4
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
4
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday
4
4
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Written from an airport. This is somewhat sketchy when comparing solutions to differential equations, but hopefully not too much for you to fill the gaps.
The main idea: bounding $f$ via differential partial equation.
We have
$$
f'(x) = sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n-1}}{n^{n-1}}
= sum_{n=0}^infty frac{x^{n}}{(n+1)^{n}}
= 1+sum_{n=1}^infty frac{frac{x^{n}}{n^n} }{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}}
> 1+frac{1}{e}sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n}}{n^n} = 1+frac{1}{e}f(x) tag{1}
$$
so in particular
$$
f' > 1+frac{1}{e}f tag{2}
$$
Since $f(0) = 0$, and the solution to $g' = 1+e^{-1}g$ with $g(0)=0$ is given by $g(x) = e^{x/e+1}-e$, we have
$$
f(x) geq e^{x/e+1}-e > 2e^{x/e} , qquad x>4tag{3}
$$
($x>4$ for the second inequality to kick in).
Now, from $(1)$ we also have
$$
f' < 1+f tag{4}
$$
(we can even improve this to $f' < 1+frac{2}{3}f$), which this time gives
$$
f(x) leq e^x - 1tag{5}
$$
Overall, for $x>4$,
$$
2e^{x/e} leq f(x) leq e^x - 1 tag{6}
$$
which provides a loose estimate of the asymptotic growth of $f$: namely, $boxed{f(x) = e^{Theta(x)}}$.
Further: Improving (slightly) on the lower bound on $log f$ by the low-order terms, and improving on the constant in the main asymptotics of the upper bound of $log f$.
I will show
$$
h(x) leq f(x) leq g(x) tag{7}
$$
where
$$
begin{align}
log h(x) &= frac{1}{e}x + 4 - logfrac{32}{3} + o(1) tag{8}\
log g(x) &= frac{256}{625}x + O(1) tag{9}
end{align}
$$
(note that $frac{256}{625} approx frac{1}{e}+0.04$). Moreover, this can be improved by the same method, pushing to more accurate estimates, but this will get uglier. (One can also push the Taylor expansion above further, based on (12) and (13). I stopped at $o(1)$).
The observation is that for the upper and lower bound, we bounded uniformly the coefficients by
$$
forall n geq 1, qquad frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}} cdot frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{e}cdot frac{1}{n^n}
$$
to obtain the two corresponding differential equations. We can do better by handling the first few terms more tightly. Namely, we have
$$
left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n = begin{cases}
frac{1}{2} & n=1\
frac{4}{9} & n=2\
frac{27}{64} & n=3\
frac{256}{625} & n=4
end{cases}
$$
(and, of course, $left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$ is decreasing to $1/e$). Thus, we can leverage this and solve instead the following two differential equations for $h$ and $g$:
begin{align}
h'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{e}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{1}{e}h(x)tag{10}\
g'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{256}{625}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{256}{625}g(x)tag{11}
end{align}
subject to $h(0)=g(0)=0$. Solving those gives a nasty expression,
begin{align}
h(x) &= frac{3}{32} e^{4 + frac{1}{e}x}
+ left(frac{1}{27} - frac{e}{64}right) x^3
+ left(frac{1}{4} - frac{3 e^2}{64}right) x^2
+ left(1 - frac{3e^3}{32}right) x
-frac{3e^4}{32} tag{12} \
g(x) &= frac{457763671875}{137438953472}e^{frac{256}{625}x}
- frac{491}{442368}x^3
- frac{123299}{4194304}x^2
- frac{195550963}{536870912}x
-frac{457763671875}{137438953472} tag{13} \
end{align}
leading to the claimed (8) and (9).
Below, a plot illustrating those approximations:
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
There is an analogue of Laplace's method which works for sums. $n ln(x/n)$ attains the maximum at $n = x/e$. Writing the exponent as $n ln(x/n) = x/e - x xi^2$, computing the expansion of $n'(xi)$ at $xi = 0$ and extending the integration range to $(-infty, infty)$, we obtain
$$frac {n'(xi)} x =
sqrt{frac 2 e} + c_1 xi -
frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 + c_3 xi^3 + O(xi^4),
quad xi to 0,\
sum_{n geq 1} frac {x^n} {n^n} =
int_{-infty}^infty
x left( sqrt{frac 2 e} - frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 +
O(xi^4) right)
e^{x/e - x xi^2} dxi = \
sqrt{frac pi 2} ,e^{x/e} left(
2sqrt{frac x e} - frac 1 {12} sqrt{frac e x} + O(x^{-3/2}) right),
quad x to infty,$$
which gives $ln f(x)$ with an error of order $O(x^{-2})$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052328%2fasymptotics-of-the-sum-sum-n-1-infty-fracxnnn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Written from an airport. This is somewhat sketchy when comparing solutions to differential equations, but hopefully not too much for you to fill the gaps.
The main idea: bounding $f$ via differential partial equation.
We have
$$
f'(x) = sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n-1}}{n^{n-1}}
= sum_{n=0}^infty frac{x^{n}}{(n+1)^{n}}
= 1+sum_{n=1}^infty frac{frac{x^{n}}{n^n} }{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}}
> 1+frac{1}{e}sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n}}{n^n} = 1+frac{1}{e}f(x) tag{1}
$$
so in particular
$$
f' > 1+frac{1}{e}f tag{2}
$$
Since $f(0) = 0$, and the solution to $g' = 1+e^{-1}g$ with $g(0)=0$ is given by $g(x) = e^{x/e+1}-e$, we have
$$
f(x) geq e^{x/e+1}-e > 2e^{x/e} , qquad x>4tag{3}
$$
($x>4$ for the second inequality to kick in).
Now, from $(1)$ we also have
$$
f' < 1+f tag{4}
$$
(we can even improve this to $f' < 1+frac{2}{3}f$), which this time gives
$$
f(x) leq e^x - 1tag{5}
$$
Overall, for $x>4$,
$$
2e^{x/e} leq f(x) leq e^x - 1 tag{6}
$$
which provides a loose estimate of the asymptotic growth of $f$: namely, $boxed{f(x) = e^{Theta(x)}}$.
Further: Improving (slightly) on the lower bound on $log f$ by the low-order terms, and improving on the constant in the main asymptotics of the upper bound of $log f$.
I will show
$$
h(x) leq f(x) leq g(x) tag{7}
$$
where
$$
begin{align}
log h(x) &= frac{1}{e}x + 4 - logfrac{32}{3} + o(1) tag{8}\
log g(x) &= frac{256}{625}x + O(1) tag{9}
end{align}
$$
(note that $frac{256}{625} approx frac{1}{e}+0.04$). Moreover, this can be improved by the same method, pushing to more accurate estimates, but this will get uglier. (One can also push the Taylor expansion above further, based on (12) and (13). I stopped at $o(1)$).
The observation is that for the upper and lower bound, we bounded uniformly the coefficients by
$$
forall n geq 1, qquad frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}} cdot frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{e}cdot frac{1}{n^n}
$$
to obtain the two corresponding differential equations. We can do better by handling the first few terms more tightly. Namely, we have
$$
left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n = begin{cases}
frac{1}{2} & n=1\
frac{4}{9} & n=2\
frac{27}{64} & n=3\
frac{256}{625} & n=4
end{cases}
$$
(and, of course, $left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$ is decreasing to $1/e$). Thus, we can leverage this and solve instead the following two differential equations for $h$ and $g$:
begin{align}
h'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{e}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{1}{e}h(x)tag{10}\
g'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{256}{625}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{256}{625}g(x)tag{11}
end{align}
subject to $h(0)=g(0)=0$. Solving those gives a nasty expression,
begin{align}
h(x) &= frac{3}{32} e^{4 + frac{1}{e}x}
+ left(frac{1}{27} - frac{e}{64}right) x^3
+ left(frac{1}{4} - frac{3 e^2}{64}right) x^2
+ left(1 - frac{3e^3}{32}right) x
-frac{3e^4}{32} tag{12} \
g(x) &= frac{457763671875}{137438953472}e^{frac{256}{625}x}
- frac{491}{442368}x^3
- frac{123299}{4194304}x^2
- frac{195550963}{536870912}x
-frac{457763671875}{137438953472} tag{13} \
end{align}
leading to the claimed (8) and (9).
Below, a plot illustrating those approximations:
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Written from an airport. This is somewhat sketchy when comparing solutions to differential equations, but hopefully not too much for you to fill the gaps.
The main idea: bounding $f$ via differential partial equation.
We have
$$
f'(x) = sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n-1}}{n^{n-1}}
= sum_{n=0}^infty frac{x^{n}}{(n+1)^{n}}
= 1+sum_{n=1}^infty frac{frac{x^{n}}{n^n} }{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}}
> 1+frac{1}{e}sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n}}{n^n} = 1+frac{1}{e}f(x) tag{1}
$$
so in particular
$$
f' > 1+frac{1}{e}f tag{2}
$$
Since $f(0) = 0$, and the solution to $g' = 1+e^{-1}g$ with $g(0)=0$ is given by $g(x) = e^{x/e+1}-e$, we have
$$
f(x) geq e^{x/e+1}-e > 2e^{x/e} , qquad x>4tag{3}
$$
($x>4$ for the second inequality to kick in).
Now, from $(1)$ we also have
$$
f' < 1+f tag{4}
$$
(we can even improve this to $f' < 1+frac{2}{3}f$), which this time gives
$$
f(x) leq e^x - 1tag{5}
$$
Overall, for $x>4$,
$$
2e^{x/e} leq f(x) leq e^x - 1 tag{6}
$$
which provides a loose estimate of the asymptotic growth of $f$: namely, $boxed{f(x) = e^{Theta(x)}}$.
Further: Improving (slightly) on the lower bound on $log f$ by the low-order terms, and improving on the constant in the main asymptotics of the upper bound of $log f$.
I will show
$$
h(x) leq f(x) leq g(x) tag{7}
$$
where
$$
begin{align}
log h(x) &= frac{1}{e}x + 4 - logfrac{32}{3} + o(1) tag{8}\
log g(x) &= frac{256}{625}x + O(1) tag{9}
end{align}
$$
(note that $frac{256}{625} approx frac{1}{e}+0.04$). Moreover, this can be improved by the same method, pushing to more accurate estimates, but this will get uglier. (One can also push the Taylor expansion above further, based on (12) and (13). I stopped at $o(1)$).
The observation is that for the upper and lower bound, we bounded uniformly the coefficients by
$$
forall n geq 1, qquad frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}} cdot frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{e}cdot frac{1}{n^n}
$$
to obtain the two corresponding differential equations. We can do better by handling the first few terms more tightly. Namely, we have
$$
left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n = begin{cases}
frac{1}{2} & n=1\
frac{4}{9} & n=2\
frac{27}{64} & n=3\
frac{256}{625} & n=4
end{cases}
$$
(and, of course, $left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$ is decreasing to $1/e$). Thus, we can leverage this and solve instead the following two differential equations for $h$ and $g$:
begin{align}
h'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{e}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{1}{e}h(x)tag{10}\
g'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{256}{625}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{256}{625}g(x)tag{11}
end{align}
subject to $h(0)=g(0)=0$. Solving those gives a nasty expression,
begin{align}
h(x) &= frac{3}{32} e^{4 + frac{1}{e}x}
+ left(frac{1}{27} - frac{e}{64}right) x^3
+ left(frac{1}{4} - frac{3 e^2}{64}right) x^2
+ left(1 - frac{3e^3}{32}right) x
-frac{3e^4}{32} tag{12} \
g(x) &= frac{457763671875}{137438953472}e^{frac{256}{625}x}
- frac{491}{442368}x^3
- frac{123299}{4194304}x^2
- frac{195550963}{536870912}x
-frac{457763671875}{137438953472} tag{13} \
end{align}
leading to the claimed (8) and (9).
Below, a plot illustrating those approximations:
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Written from an airport. This is somewhat sketchy when comparing solutions to differential equations, but hopefully not too much for you to fill the gaps.
The main idea: bounding $f$ via differential partial equation.
We have
$$
f'(x) = sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n-1}}{n^{n-1}}
= sum_{n=0}^infty frac{x^{n}}{(n+1)^{n}}
= 1+sum_{n=1}^infty frac{frac{x^{n}}{n^n} }{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}}
> 1+frac{1}{e}sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n}}{n^n} = 1+frac{1}{e}f(x) tag{1}
$$
so in particular
$$
f' > 1+frac{1}{e}f tag{2}
$$
Since $f(0) = 0$, and the solution to $g' = 1+e^{-1}g$ with $g(0)=0$ is given by $g(x) = e^{x/e+1}-e$, we have
$$
f(x) geq e^{x/e+1}-e > 2e^{x/e} , qquad x>4tag{3}
$$
($x>4$ for the second inequality to kick in).
Now, from $(1)$ we also have
$$
f' < 1+f tag{4}
$$
(we can even improve this to $f' < 1+frac{2}{3}f$), which this time gives
$$
f(x) leq e^x - 1tag{5}
$$
Overall, for $x>4$,
$$
2e^{x/e} leq f(x) leq e^x - 1 tag{6}
$$
which provides a loose estimate of the asymptotic growth of $f$: namely, $boxed{f(x) = e^{Theta(x)}}$.
Further: Improving (slightly) on the lower bound on $log f$ by the low-order terms, and improving on the constant in the main asymptotics of the upper bound of $log f$.
I will show
$$
h(x) leq f(x) leq g(x) tag{7}
$$
where
$$
begin{align}
log h(x) &= frac{1}{e}x + 4 - logfrac{32}{3} + o(1) tag{8}\
log g(x) &= frac{256}{625}x + O(1) tag{9}
end{align}
$$
(note that $frac{256}{625} approx frac{1}{e}+0.04$). Moreover, this can be improved by the same method, pushing to more accurate estimates, but this will get uglier. (One can also push the Taylor expansion above further, based on (12) and (13). I stopped at $o(1)$).
The observation is that for the upper and lower bound, we bounded uniformly the coefficients by
$$
forall n geq 1, qquad frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}} cdot frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{e}cdot frac{1}{n^n}
$$
to obtain the two corresponding differential equations. We can do better by handling the first few terms more tightly. Namely, we have
$$
left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n = begin{cases}
frac{1}{2} & n=1\
frac{4}{9} & n=2\
frac{27}{64} & n=3\
frac{256}{625} & n=4
end{cases}
$$
(and, of course, $left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$ is decreasing to $1/e$). Thus, we can leverage this and solve instead the following two differential equations for $h$ and $g$:
begin{align}
h'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{e}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{1}{e}h(x)tag{10}\
g'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{256}{625}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{256}{625}g(x)tag{11}
end{align}
subject to $h(0)=g(0)=0$. Solving those gives a nasty expression,
begin{align}
h(x) &= frac{3}{32} e^{4 + frac{1}{e}x}
+ left(frac{1}{27} - frac{e}{64}right) x^3
+ left(frac{1}{4} - frac{3 e^2}{64}right) x^2
+ left(1 - frac{3e^3}{32}right) x
-frac{3e^4}{32} tag{12} \
g(x) &= frac{457763671875}{137438953472}e^{frac{256}{625}x}
- frac{491}{442368}x^3
- frac{123299}{4194304}x^2
- frac{195550963}{536870912}x
-frac{457763671875}{137438953472} tag{13} \
end{align}
leading to the claimed (8) and (9).
Below, a plot illustrating those approximations:
Written from an airport. This is somewhat sketchy when comparing solutions to differential equations, but hopefully not too much for you to fill the gaps.
The main idea: bounding $f$ via differential partial equation.
We have
$$
f'(x) = sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n-1}}{n^{n-1}}
= sum_{n=0}^infty frac{x^{n}}{(n+1)^{n}}
= 1+sum_{n=1}^infty frac{frac{x^{n}}{n^n} }{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}}
> 1+frac{1}{e}sum_{n=1}^infty frac{x^{n}}{n^n} = 1+frac{1}{e}f(x) tag{1}
$$
so in particular
$$
f' > 1+frac{1}{e}f tag{2}
$$
Since $f(0) = 0$, and the solution to $g' = 1+e^{-1}g$ with $g(0)=0$ is given by $g(x) = e^{x/e+1}-e$, we have
$$
f(x) geq e^{x/e+1}-e > 2e^{x/e} , qquad x>4tag{3}
$$
($x>4$ for the second inequality to kick in).
Now, from $(1)$ we also have
$$
f' < 1+f tag{4}
$$
(we can even improve this to $f' < 1+frac{2}{3}f$), which this time gives
$$
f(x) leq e^x - 1tag{5}
$$
Overall, for $x>4$,
$$
2e^{x/e} leq f(x) leq e^x - 1 tag{6}
$$
which provides a loose estimate of the asymptotic growth of $f$: namely, $boxed{f(x) = e^{Theta(x)}}$.
Further: Improving (slightly) on the lower bound on $log f$ by the low-order terms, and improving on the constant in the main asymptotics of the upper bound of $log f$.
I will show
$$
h(x) leq f(x) leq g(x) tag{7}
$$
where
$$
begin{align}
log h(x) &= frac{1}{e}x + 4 - logfrac{32}{3} + o(1) tag{8}\
log g(x) &= frac{256}{625}x + O(1) tag{9}
end{align}
$$
(note that $frac{256}{625} approx frac{1}{e}+0.04$). Moreover, this can be improved by the same method, pushing to more accurate estimates, but this will get uglier. (One can also push the Taylor expansion above further, based on (12) and (13). I stopped at $o(1)$).
The observation is that for the upper and lower bound, we bounded uniformly the coefficients by
$$
forall n geq 1, qquad frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^{n}} cdot frac{1}{n^n} leq frac{1}{e}cdot frac{1}{n^n}
$$
to obtain the two corresponding differential equations. We can do better by handling the first few terms more tightly. Namely, we have
$$
left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n = begin{cases}
frac{1}{2} & n=1\
frac{4}{9} & n=2\
frac{27}{64} & n=3\
frac{256}{625} & n=4
end{cases}
$$
(and, of course, $left(1+frac{1}{n}right)^n$ is decreasing to $1/e$). Thus, we can leverage this and solve instead the following two differential equations for $h$ and $g$:
begin{align}
h'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{e}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{1}{e}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{1}{e}h(x)tag{10}\
g'(x) &= 1 + left(frac{1}{2} - frac{256}{625}right) x + left(frac{4}{9} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^2}{4} + left( frac{27}{64} - frac{256}{625}right) frac{x^3}{27} + frac{256}{625}g(x)tag{11}
end{align}
subject to $h(0)=g(0)=0$. Solving those gives a nasty expression,
begin{align}
h(x) &= frac{3}{32} e^{4 + frac{1}{e}x}
+ left(frac{1}{27} - frac{e}{64}right) x^3
+ left(frac{1}{4} - frac{3 e^2}{64}right) x^2
+ left(1 - frac{3e^3}{32}right) x
-frac{3e^4}{32} tag{12} \
g(x) &= frac{457763671875}{137438953472}e^{frac{256}{625}x}
- frac{491}{442368}x^3
- frac{123299}{4194304}x^2
- frac{195550963}{536870912}x
-frac{457763671875}{137438953472} tag{13} \
end{align}
leading to the claimed (8) and (9).
Below, a plot illustrating those approximations:
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Clement C.
49.6k33886
49.6k33886
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note: I believe the lower bound to be tight, i.e., $log f(x) = x/e +o(x)$. One can get closer to the constant $1/e$ by the above approach, by treating the first few terms of the series separately to get a better differential equation lower bound (since higher terms allow a better bound on $(1+1/n)^n$).
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
Note 2: actually, f(0)=0. This won't change much and the conclusion stands, but the answer needs to be edited. I'll do it when landing.
– Clement C.
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
"Please make sure your table is in the upright position. We'll be taking off shortly... "No!!! But Frpzzd will enjoy this explanation so much more if there is a graph!!!" "Sir... please put the laptop away. "
– Mason
2 days ago
1
1
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
OR take $g(x) = frac{f(x)}{e^{x/e}},$ where you have proved that $g' > 0$
– Will Jagy
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
+1. Good answer. I am going to see if we can use Abel's summation formula to corroborate this work. If I find a way of doing that I will try and write it up.
– Mason
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
There is an analogue of Laplace's method which works for sums. $n ln(x/n)$ attains the maximum at $n = x/e$. Writing the exponent as $n ln(x/n) = x/e - x xi^2$, computing the expansion of $n'(xi)$ at $xi = 0$ and extending the integration range to $(-infty, infty)$, we obtain
$$frac {n'(xi)} x =
sqrt{frac 2 e} + c_1 xi -
frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 + c_3 xi^3 + O(xi^4),
quad xi to 0,\
sum_{n geq 1} frac {x^n} {n^n} =
int_{-infty}^infty
x left( sqrt{frac 2 e} - frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 +
O(xi^4) right)
e^{x/e - x xi^2} dxi = \
sqrt{frac pi 2} ,e^{x/e} left(
2sqrt{frac x e} - frac 1 {12} sqrt{frac e x} + O(x^{-3/2}) right),
quad x to infty,$$
which gives $ln f(x)$ with an error of order $O(x^{-2})$.
add a comment |
There is an analogue of Laplace's method which works for sums. $n ln(x/n)$ attains the maximum at $n = x/e$. Writing the exponent as $n ln(x/n) = x/e - x xi^2$, computing the expansion of $n'(xi)$ at $xi = 0$ and extending the integration range to $(-infty, infty)$, we obtain
$$frac {n'(xi)} x =
sqrt{frac 2 e} + c_1 xi -
frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 + c_3 xi^3 + O(xi^4),
quad xi to 0,\
sum_{n geq 1} frac {x^n} {n^n} =
int_{-infty}^infty
x left( sqrt{frac 2 e} - frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 +
O(xi^4) right)
e^{x/e - x xi^2} dxi = \
sqrt{frac pi 2} ,e^{x/e} left(
2sqrt{frac x e} - frac 1 {12} sqrt{frac e x} + O(x^{-3/2}) right),
quad x to infty,$$
which gives $ln f(x)$ with an error of order $O(x^{-2})$.
add a comment |
There is an analogue of Laplace's method which works for sums. $n ln(x/n)$ attains the maximum at $n = x/e$. Writing the exponent as $n ln(x/n) = x/e - x xi^2$, computing the expansion of $n'(xi)$ at $xi = 0$ and extending the integration range to $(-infty, infty)$, we obtain
$$frac {n'(xi)} x =
sqrt{frac 2 e} + c_1 xi -
frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 + c_3 xi^3 + O(xi^4),
quad xi to 0,\
sum_{n geq 1} frac {x^n} {n^n} =
int_{-infty}^infty
x left( sqrt{frac 2 e} - frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 +
O(xi^4) right)
e^{x/e - x xi^2} dxi = \
sqrt{frac pi 2} ,e^{x/e} left(
2sqrt{frac x e} - frac 1 {12} sqrt{frac e x} + O(x^{-3/2}) right),
quad x to infty,$$
which gives $ln f(x)$ with an error of order $O(x^{-2})$.
There is an analogue of Laplace's method which works for sums. $n ln(x/n)$ attains the maximum at $n = x/e$. Writing the exponent as $n ln(x/n) = x/e - x xi^2$, computing the expansion of $n'(xi)$ at $xi = 0$ and extending the integration range to $(-infty, infty)$, we obtain
$$frac {n'(xi)} x =
sqrt{frac 2 e} + c_1 xi -
frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 + c_3 xi^3 + O(xi^4),
quad xi to 0,\
sum_{n geq 1} frac {x^n} {n^n} =
int_{-infty}^infty
x left( sqrt{frac 2 e} - frac 1 6 sqrt{frac e 2} ,xi^2 +
O(xi^4) right)
e^{x/e - x xi^2} dxi = \
sqrt{frac pi 2} ,e^{x/e} left(
2sqrt{frac x e} - frac 1 {12} sqrt{frac e x} + O(x^{-3/2}) right),
quad x to infty,$$
which gives $ln f(x)$ with an error of order $O(x^{-2})$.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Maxim
4,4931219
4,4931219
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052328%2fasymptotics-of-the-sum-sum-n-1-infty-fracxnnn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
why do you think it's dominated by any exponential?
– zhw.
2 days ago
Using some heuristic reasoning I guess that $$f(x) sim e^{x/e} sqrt{frac{2pi x}{e}}.$$
– Antonio Vargas
2 days ago
@Frpzzd How accurate do you want your asymptotics to be? I can improve my upper and lower bounds on the asymptotics of $log f$ by the same technique as my current answer. Is it worth it?
– Clement C.
yesterday
@ClementC. Yes, that would be awesome! It would be nice to know $log f$ within $O(1/x^2)$ or $O(1/x)$, but that might be a stretch... I am interested to see what magic you can work with it, though. :D
– Frpzzd
yesterday
@Frpzzd A priori, I can mostly improve the constant $c>1/e$ in the upper bound $log f(x) leq cx + o(x)$ (and also improve a bit the $o(x)$ in the lower bound).
– Clement C.
yesterday